28 July 1999. Thanks to Peter Leitner.
Source:
http://www.house.gov/reform/letters/99_07_19.pdf
(361K)
See Peter Leitner's testimony on harassment: http://jya.com/pml062499.htm
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
2157 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6143
July 19, 1999
The Honorable William S. Cohen
Secretary of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20301
Dear Secretary Cohen:
As you are well aware, I have great concerns about allegations of retaliatory measures taken against individuals who have spoken out about national security concerns. Indeed, you wrote me on July 8, 1999, that you are “committed to ensuring the Department’s cooperation as we seek to resolve this matter.” With this in mind, I am concerned that Defense Department personnel are acting in a way that unfortunately raises the specter of partisan politics.
One of the matters that was of mutual concern involved an allegation that while Dr. Peter Leitner was testifying before the Committee on Government Reform, his immediate superior at the Department of Defense -- an individual who has allegedly harassed Dr. Leitner in the past -- sought to transfer all the files from Leitner’s personal computer drive to another person’s computer. Given your interest in this matter, you should be aware that your employees may not share your view that politics should be kept out of this investigation. At the very least, I expected that the Defense Department personnel involved in this investigation would behave in a non-partisan, even-handed fashion. On this score, I am disappointed.
I. Involvement of Deputy General Counsel Harold Kwalwasser
On Friday, July 16, 1999, one of my attorneys called the office of Harold J. Kwalwasser, Deputy General Counsel at the Pentagon. The call was to discuss the scheduling of interviews. My staff was surprised to learn that Mr. Kwalwasser was “on the Hill” briefing the Democratic staff on my Committee. Subsequent calls confirmed that Mr. Kwalwasser was indeed providing an exclusive briefing to the Minority. Furthermore, when my staff suggested that perhaps the Majority had been excluded as an oversight, both Mr. Kwalwasser’s secretary and another lawyer who originally was to attend the meeting were evasive, and claimed not to know any details about the meeting.
My concerns intensified when I learned some details of Mr. Kwalwasser’s previous professional endeavors. According to a Wall Street Journal article, Mr. Kwalwasser’s nickname is “the Mortician,” a moniker acquired through his prowess at “opposition research.” As a former aide of Mr. Kwalwasser’s pointed out, “if he looks at you, you’re dead.” Mr. Kwalwasser is also a frequent and heavy contributor to Democratic candidates and political causes.
I do not dispute for a minute your right to hire whatever staff you deem appropriate. I am surprised, however, that your staff would needlessly inject an element of suspicion into an investigation that was purportedly non-partisan. I am also concerned that one of your senior lawyers would be so oblivious to the appearance of impropriety that he would schedule a briefing for Democratic staff, and purposefully exclude Republican staff. Indeed, it is unclear to me what the Defense Department hoped to gain by hiring a Democratic political operative nicknamed “the Mortician” to work in its General Counsel’s office, particularly at such a high level. Apparently a good working relationship with Congress was not high on the list when this personnel decision was made.
Historical anecdotes about Mr. Kwalwasser might merely be the subject of levity if it were not for the very real sense that your staff is willing to play politics with this very serious matter. By favoring the Democratic Minority, and by purposefully excluding the Majority, your staff has further aroused suspicion that something untoward has taken place. How do you think this appears to Dr. Leitner and to other staff who voiced concerns that there might be improper conduct involving the request to transfer all of Dr. Leitner’s files to someone else’s computer?
Given the fundamental issue -- that Defense Department personnel have not acted appropriately where Dr. Leitner is involved -- it is disturbing that one of your lawyers would give employees who are already concerned yet another reason to conclude that your investigation is just business as usual.
As a recently-released OSI report indicates: “several interviews of LEITNER’S peers and co-workers revealed a consistent opinion that the attempted transfer was part of an on-going harassment of LEITNER by DTRA management for his outspoken opinions regarding DTRA policy.” As Aleta Stewart-Bryan, an employee interviewed by OSI, stated: “they are always digging for something wrong [with Leitner].” As Master Sergeant Sobers pointed out to OSI investigators when discussing whether Leitner was being harassed: “we all know what’s going on.” As Major Roe wrote in a memorandum for the OSI: “They all [Carolyn Slavin, Frank Cruz, and TSgt. Kevin Breneman] perceived that COL Willson only asked to have files transferred on the days that Mr. Leitner was testifying on the Hill. Ms. Slavin stated she perceives, and that it was common knowledge with ST [the Technology Security section at DTRA] that COL Willson and Mr. Woody have a personal vendetta against Mr. Leitner.” Notwithstanding these very real concerns among staff, you now have a situation where your General Counsel’s office is showing favoritism to Democratic staff who have already weighed in on this matter in favor of management and against Dr. Leitner. The obvious perception this causes among your employees should be a source of extreme concern to you.
I can think of no reason that Mr. Kwalwasser would not include both Majority and Minority staff, The fact that he failed to notify my staff that he was conducting a briefing clearly indicates that he did not wish to share his observations or answers to questions posed and was instead engaged in a partisan effort to discredit Dr. Leitner. It is activity like this -- particularly given the underlying allegations of professional harassment -- that regrettably makes the conduct of the Defense Department seem suspicious.
II. The OSI Investigation
On another note, I do have some reservations about the recently-released OS1 report concluding that “no criminal violations of law had taken place as a result of the attempted computer tile transfer.” On one plane, I am worried that the technical errors in the report indicate less competence than you would demand. For example, in paragraph 4-15 the report states that “Leitner related that on 24 Jun 99, he was testifying before the Cox Committee of the Congress.”
Leitner’s own statement, included later, indicates that he was testifying before the Committee on Government Reform, which I chair. At other places in the report, it is stated that the request to transfer files from Dr. Leitner’s computer was in response to a Congressional request made by Senator Graham. As you are aware, it was Senator Gramm of Texas whose request was at issue. Simple errors such as this do not engender confidence.
On another and more important plane, OSI concluded that the interviews with Dr. Leitner’s peers and co-workers revealed a consistent opinion that the attempted transfer was part of an ongoing pattern of harassment of Leitner by the DTRA management. OSI, however, then goes on to accept the statements of DTRA management with seemingly little skepticism and even less investigation. Of greater concern, though, is the fact that OS1 specifically requested that, in arriving at conclusions about the OSI investigation, the Judge Advocate’s staff, “not address the claims of Dr. Leitner that the conduct was in retaliation for his alleged whistle blowing activity at DTRA because it is being investigated as part of another open case.” It appears that OSI’s request is nonsensical given the statements by some DTRA personnel about the pattern and practice evidenced by Colonel Willson’s past attempts to access Dr. Leitner’s computer, and the fact that this investigation was supposed to be about harassment. To consider the access issue outside the context of past behavior and allegations of harassment makes the OSI conclusion, at best, meaningless.
Another area of great concern involves Colonel Willson’s access to his office once he had been instructed to work at another location. On Wednesday, June 30, 1999, Colonel Willson was permitted unrestricted access to his office at DTRA. This was the day of a DTRA staff picnic, and few people were at the office. I do not understand, given the ongoing investigation, why the decision to allow unsupervised access was made. The next day, the following e-mail was distributed:
Mr. McMillan at the direction of Mr. Jay Davis has issued the following guidance pertaining to USAF Colonel Ray Willson. As DTRS/ST Security Manager I have been instructed by Mr. McMillan, HQ DTRA Security to have all external cipher locks on the lst, 2nd and 3rd floors changed. I have also been order [sic] to inform you that USAF Ray Willson is not allow [sic] in DTRALST space without an escort.
This appears to be a classic case of locking the barn door after the horse has escaped. Other information obtained by the Committee shows that other staff had concerns about Colonel Willson being permitted unrestricted access. Again, as with the decision to use Mr. Kwalwasser as the lead lawyer in this case, and Mr. Kwalwasser’s decision to provide the Minority of this Committee with a private briefing, the decision to allow Colonel Willson unrestricted access to his office provides a clear sense that something inappropriate has happened to the “investigation” that you promised in good faith. In my opinion, such actions inject an element of doubt into the motivations behind decisions affecting this investigation.
I trust that you will monitor this matter closely to ensure that the investigation is conducted fairly, that someone makes an effort to resolve the allegations of harassment, and that your employees behave in a manner that will not create unnecessary suspicions that this matter has been subsumed by a political spin control operation.
Dan Burton
Chairman
cc: Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Minority Member
Jay Davis, Director, Defense Threat Reduction Agency